Basant, J.

This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Family Court directing the appellants to pay a total amount of Rs.5,70,000- along with interest to the respondents hereinclaimants. Claimant No.1 is the divorced wife of the first appellant. Second appellant is the mother of the first appellant Second claimant is the father of the first claimant.

2. On fundamental facts, there is no dispute. The marriage took place on 26.08.1998. On the wife’s application, the marriage was dissolved by order dated 27.12.2004. The parties had commenced separate residence even earlier with effect from 10.08.2001. The O.P was filed before the Family Court, Manjeri on 31.01.2005. The Family Court, Manjeri was established in the year 2000.

3. Prior to the filing of the present O.P., a suit was filed by the claimants against the appellants herein praying for identical reliefs. That suit was filed on 01.11.2001. The suit was pending before the Subordinate Judge, Tirur for a long period of time. Ultimately, it was withdrawn on the application of the claimants after securing the requisite leave of the Court to institute a freshproceedings on the same cause of action. That order permitting withdrawal was passed on 6.10.2004. It is thereafter that O.P.No.585 was filed on 31.01.2005.

4. The prayer in the suit originally filed and in the present O.P. is for return of 62 sovereigns of gold ornaments and an amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs, which the claimants had allegedly handed over to the appellants in circumstances arising out of the matrimonial relationship of the spouses. It was alleged that out of the total quantity of about 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments handed over to the appellants in connection with the marriage of the first claimant with the first appellant, only about 38 sovereigns could be taken back, leaving behind 62 sovereigns with the first appellant. It was further alleged that during the currency of t he marriage, under circumstances arising out of the matrimonial relationship, a total amount of Rs. 3.50 lakhs was handed over by the claimants-wife and her father to the appellant to meet certain expenditure. It was a nongratuitous payment made and the appellants have the legal obligation to return the said amount of Rs.5.70 lakhs, it was contended. Rs.2.20 lakhs is claimed as the value of the gold ornaments and Rs.3.50 lakhs is claimed as the currency handed over. Even after separate residence and even after the divorce, the amounts were not paid and this obliged the claimants to first go before the Civil Court and later after withdrawal of the said proceedings to approach the Family Court with the prayer for return.

5. Appellants entered appearance and resisted the claim. No ornaments were left behind by the first claimant when she returned to here parental home from the matrimonial home, it was contended. No money whatsoever was handed over by the claimants to the appellants, it was further contended. At any rate, the claim by the second claimant is not maintainable as the alleged dispute between him and the appellants about the return of the money does not fall within Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, it was contended. In any view of the matter, the second appellant cannot be mulcted with any liability to return the amounts, it was further contended. Plea of limitation as well as plea of misjoinder of causes of action were also raised.

6. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimants examined PWs 1 to 4. PW1 is the first claimant and PW2 is the second claimant. PW3 is a neighbour who had allegedly witnessed payment of money and PW4 is the jeweler who had allegedly made the ornaments for the marriage of the first claimant. The first appellant examined himself as RW1. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked. Exhibit A1 is the notice of demand dated 11.09.2001 and Exhibit A2 is the reply thereto. Exhibit A3 is a statement/acknowledgment referred to as a receipt in the appendix given by PW4 about the list of ornament